334 F.

2d 9

Johnnie BROWN, Appellant,

v.
Vernon L. PEPERSACK, Warden Maryland Penitentiary,
Appellee.
No. 9148.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued January 8, 1964.
Decided June 23, 1964.
Certiorari Denied November 16, 1964.

See 85 S.Ct. 269.

H. Russell Smouse, Baltimore, Md. (Court-assigned counsel), for
appellant.
Robert F. Sweeney, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Maryland (Thomas B. Finan, Atty.
Gen. of Maryland, on brief), for appellee.
Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, and HAYNSWORTH and J. S P E N C
E R BELL, Circuit Judges.
HAYNSWORTH, Circuit Judge:

Much tried Johnnie Brown, whose rights have received extensive and
sympathetic care by the Courts of Maryland, now seeks his release through a
writ of habeas corpus in the federal courts. The District Court denied the writ,
we think properly.

Johnnie Brown, a Negro, killed a policeman in Salisbury, Maryland, after he

had been placed under arrest on forgery charges. There was never any question
about the homicide, and Brown's only possible defense was that the killing was
accidental, or not premeditated.

After Brown was indicted for murder by a Wicomico County Grand Jury in
Salisbury, the county seat, the case was removed for trial to Dorchester County.

There had been some rather inflammatory articles in a newspaper published in

Salisbury, but the newspapers published in Cambridge, the county seat of
Dorchester County, were moderate in their reports of the crime and of the trials.
4

The State Court had appointed to represent Brown, Vaughn E. Richardson and
Richard M. Pollit, both of Salisbury. Mr. Richardson is one of the most
experienced criminal lawyers in Maryland and is said to have appeared as
defense counsel in some 170 capital cases since he was admitted to the bar in
1946. Mr. Pollit is his associate.1

Brown's first trial in Cambridge, Maryland, resulted in a verdict of murder in

the first degree. He was sentenced to death. Messrs. Richardson and Pollit took
an appeal to the Maryland Court of Appeals, however, and obtained a reversal
of that conviction upon the ground that they had not been permitted to ask
prospective jurors on their voir dire examination whether or not they
entertained any prejudice against Negroes.2

On the second trial in Cambridge, Brown was again found guilty of murder in
the first degree and was again sentenced to death. Messrs. Richardson and
Pollit again appealed to the Court of Appeals of Maryland and again obtained a
reversal of the second conviction. The basis of the reversal of the second
conviction was that the prosecutor had read to the jury portions of the opinion
of the Court of Appeals reversing the conviction in the first trial, extracts which
the Court found prejudicial to Brown on the second trial.3

Brown's case was then removed from Dorchester County to Talbot County for
the third trial. For that third trial, the three judges of the Second Judicial Circuit
of Maryland sat together. The Talbot County jury, as the two Dorchester
County juries before it, brought in a verdict of murder in the first degree, and
Brown, for the third time, was sentenced to death. Messrs. Richardson and
Pollit again appealed to the Court of Appeals of Maryland, but this time the
conviction was affirmed.4 The principal ground of appeal there was that
proposed requests for instructions were discussed by the Three-Judge-Court
with counsel in chambers out of the presence of the defendant. The Maryland
Court of Appeals held that such a conference was not a part of the trial, and that
no constitutional or statutory provision required that the defendant be then
present.5

Brown then began a proceeding under Maryland's Post-Conviction Procedure

Act, collaterally attacking the judgment of conviction in the third trial. Messrs.
Richardson and Pollit appeared for Brown in the lower court, apparently in

default of any other attorney, though Brown had included in his petition
criticism of his attorneys for not having procured the removal of his case, after
the second trial, to some place more distant from Cambridge than Talbot
County. On application to the Maryland Court of Appeals, it vacated the denial
of post conviction relief6 and remanded the proceedings with instructions that
other counsel be appointed to represent Brown, and it designated the Chief
Judge of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore to conduct a second post-conviction
hearing.
9

Mr. H. Russell Smouse, an experienced attorney of Baltimore who has ably

represented Brown in this proceeding, had been appointed by the District Court
to represent Brown in a habeas corpus proceeding filed before the postconviction hearing was held. Mr. Smouse appeared as Brown's attorney in the
second post-conviction hearing before Chief Judge Manley. After full inquiry,
however, Judge Manley denied post-conviction relief. The Court of Appeals for
Maryland denied leave to appeal, adopting as its own the opinion of Judge
Manley.7

10

After Brown's case had thus been considered five times by the Maryland Court
of Appeals, he was left without further remedy in the state courts. He then, with
the assistance of Mr. Smouse, proceeded with the petition for habeas corpus in
the District Court. That petition was denied after a hearing and thorough
consideration by the District Court.8 This appeal followed.

11

The principal point urged in the habeas corpus proceeding is that Brown did not
have adequate representation by counsel when his case was removed after the
second trial from Dorchester to Talbot County. The suggestion is that Mr.
Richardson should have requested that the case be removed to the Western
Shore, and that such a request should have been granted by the Judges of the
First Judicial Circuit of Maryland. The District Judge concluded that the
contention was unfounded, and we agree.

12

After the Maryland Court of Appeals had reversed Brown's second conviction,
Brown suggested to Mr. Richardson that he would like to have the case
removed for a second time, this time from Dorchester County and Cambridge to
some place in the Western part of Maryland. Mr. Richardson discussed the
matter with him, expressing the opinion that the Judges of the First Judicial
Circuit9 would grant a requested transfer to one of the counties in the Second
Judicial Circuit, but that he was doubtful if they would transfer the case to the
Western part of the State or even to Baltimore. He thought either Talbot or Kent
Counties would be very favorable for a trial. He knew the Judges of the Second
Circuit and thought they were very liberal in granting challenges to jurors in

capital cases.10 He thought the people of Talbot and Kent Counties much more
cosmopolitan than the people of Wicomico or Dorchester, and he had a number
of acquaintances in those counties.
13

Mr. Richardson was not content with his general opinion about the
appropriateness of a county in the Second Circuit for the trial of Brown's case.
Through prospective legal associates in Talbot and Kent Counties, he made
inquiry as to the extent, if any, that Brown's case was a matter of general
information or interest in these counties. Entirely reassured as a result of those
inquiries, he filed a petition for a transfer from the First Judicial Circuit without
specifying the county to which he wished the case transferred, but knowing that
the Judges of the First Judicial Circuit, without further suggestion, would likely
transfer the case either to Talbot or Kent. The transfer of the case to Talbot was
thus within his expectation and in accordance with his wish.

14

The circumstances do not disclose anything remotely approaching neglect by

Messrs. Richardson and Pollit of their client's interest. They appear to have
stoutly defended him through three trials and during three appeals, two of
which were successful. The decision to seek a second removal, without
insistence upon removal to the Western Shore, was made only after
considerable reflection and actual investigation which provided a sound basis
for their judgment that Talbot or Kent would provide a favorable atmosphere
for the third trial, a fair jury and fair judges.

15

The most significant thing in the case, however, is the fact that Richardson's
judgment appears to have been entirely vindicated. At least, there is no
suggestion that the trial at Easton in Talbot County was not completely fair and
free of all influence of any prejudice against the defendant personally or against
the race of which he is a member. There were a number of Negroes on the jury
panel, and the Court's liberalism in excusing all jurors who gave unsatisfactory
answers to any of Richardson's questions left the jury which actually sat as
completely free of any charge of prejudice or bias as any jury might be.

16

Indeed, if any fault might be found with Mr. Richardson's judgment on the
petition for removal of the case from Dorchester County, it would avail nothing
here if Brown, in fact, obtained a trial which was completely fair and free of
prejudice. Having obtained the fair trial to which he was entitled, no question of
constitutional dimension arises out of a suggestion that Mr. Richardson might
have had more assurance that a fair trial would result if the transfer had been to
some court on the Western Shore.

17

A review of all of these proceedings and a reading of the five opinions of

17

A review of all of these proceedings and a reading of the five opinions of

Maryland's Court of Appeals reveal an assiduous protection of Brown's legal
rights. The third trial has withstood the close scrutiny born of such assiduous
concern, both in the Maryland Courts and in the District Court. Here, since
there is no basis for a claim of unfairness in the third trial, we find no
constitutional ground for federal interference with the state court's judgment.

18

Affirmed.

Notes:
1

Among other things, Brown now says that he was given insufficient time to
obtain counsel of his own choosing before Messrs. Richardson and Pollit were
appointed to represent him. The contention, as a constitutional objection, is
frivolous. The Courts are under pressure to appoint counsel at a very early stage
in the proceedings when the absence of advice by counsel might be fatal to the
adequate protection of the constitutional rights of the accused. The appointment
of counsel willing to serve, however, did not prevent the accused from
obtaining some other attorney of his own choice, and there was ample time
after the appointment of Messrs. Richardson and Pollit before the trial of the
case for Brown to have obtained counsel of his own choice had he wished and
been able to do so. He had communicated with two or more attorneys, whom he
knew personally or by reputation, but they were unwilling to represent him, and
Brown appears to have made no further effort in that direction after Messrs.
Richardson and Pollit became actively engaged in the case

Brown v. State, 220 Md. 29, 150 A.2d 895

Brown v. State, 222 Md. 290, 159 A.2d 844

Brown v. State, 225 Md. 349, 170 A.2d 300, 85 A.L.R.2d 1107

This contention Brown repeats in his habeas corpus proceeding. We think it

sufficiently answered by the opinion of the Maryland Court of Appeals

Brown v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary, 228 Md. 654, 179 A.2d 419

Brown v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary, 230 Md. 629, 186 A.2d 595

Brown v. Pepersack, D.C.Md., 217 F. Supp. 547

The First Judicial Circuit comprises the four southernmost counties on the
Eastern Shore and includes both Wicomico and Dorchester Counties. The five

northernmost counties on the Eastern Shore comprise the Second Judicial

Circuit, Talbot being one of them
10

It appears that the three Judges of the Second Circuit excused each juror whose
answers to Mr. Richardson's questions on voir dire were unsatisfactory to him